get_logs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose pagination, ordering, and filtering behavior. However, it does not mention output format, default behavior, or any non-obvious side effects, leaving some room for improvement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences convey the resource, ordering, and a practical filtering use case without waste. Every phrase earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete enough for a paginated log-reading tool: it captures pagination, ordering, filtering, and a motivating scenario. It does not describe the response shape, but the lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the simplicity of the operation and the clear input schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds purpose to 'page' and 'level' by connecting them to the log-review workflow. However, it does not explicitly explain page_size or sort_direction, and with no output schema the parameter context is only partially enriched.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Page through'), a clear resource ('Radarr's log entries'), and key ordering ('newest first'). It also explains the filtering purpose, making it easy to distinguish from the unrelated sibling tools on the list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a concrete use case: filtering by level to find the error behind a failed grab or import. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but no direct alternative exists among the siblings, so the guidance is sufficient for typical selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.